DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss!

[Sandisw]

Thanks for confirming it still works! At least DVC is being consistent with the terms even via chat. This should be fine for anyone not truly renting for commercial purposes.

It would be comical for DVC to question the change of a lead guest if you're noted as "traveling together" or requesting connecting villas at VGF or PVB.

I think this just supports that DVC said they want to crack down on those large point owners who were clearly renting in a way that was well outside what would be reaonsable renting under a personal use clause.

With the notion that frequent and regular rentals is not personal use, it is a lot easier now for DVC to go after someone who has a lot of reservations booked in others names since that is what the terms and conditions that one agrees to when booking states.

But, I think it also gives the owner who does rent guidance on what should still be acceptable.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not confident that the fact you can do it with MS today means you will be able to do it with MS a week or a month for now-- however, it would make sense if it can still be done manually with MS and they can quickly check that you haven't changed names on many reservations over the past year or two-- I think it would actually be the best case solution (except we will pay slightly more in dues as this will make name changes more labor intensive... though in theory they could code this but hey, we're talking about Disney IT here).

The reason I don’t think we are going to see that level is that many owners, when booking multiple rooms will just book in their own names and change later

It doesn’t need to be that complicated and I just don’t see DVC going there to try and micromanage it.

It’s why I think they used the terminology that they did…it’s about volume and regularity.

Sure, some commercial renters out there capitalize on high profit rooms, but some do not. Same is true for your normal owner who might hardly ever rent but choose to do a spec rental that one time.

This change alone will make some owners who have been renting in volume rethink that…the change to one transfer in or out for all will also have an impact.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

I disagree. The disappointment is in my eyes is of the unsuspecting family that didn't know a box to check existed and thought they could finally afford a family trip to Disney by renting points from a member.
Now Disney has cancelled their room because it was made by someone that rents commercially and they have nowhere to stay.

I’m sure Disney will do what they can to try to accommodate that family when they show up (at rack rate of course). The family should get a refund of what they paid to the owner.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m sure Disney will do what they can to try to accommodate that family when they show up (at rack rate of course). The family should get a refund of what they paid to the owner.

Disney won’t be refunding anyone but I am sure that they would help to help the owner with a new room they pay for.

It’s why I said I could see this impacting private rentals.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

and is encouraging owners to reach out to lawyers over the new terms

lol, good luck with that.

 

[tx911]

How can owners on the one hand be allowed to rent - but on the other not be allowed?

I mean commercial renting is by definition getting money for the reservation.

So I'm allowed to rent or give a reservation an away as long as money is not exchanging hands?

I think what Disney will be looking for is a pattern of commercial use of your points instead of personal vacations.

I’m quite sure that Disney will be very selective in who they target to the point that it will be very easy to show in court that the membership is being predominantly used for commercial purposes.

 

[cruisehopeful]

I wish they were more specific. If my memory is correct, 10+ years ago lots of people were buying double what they needed because they were going to rent out half their points to cover their own vacations. That sounds like personal use, I guess, but half of their points were bought just to rent.

I was surprised that @Sandisw had to say her change was for personal use on the phone. I do recollect making some VDH reservations by phone on the first day we were allowed to book and they asked if I was the lead on all the reservations, nothing about "personal use" and that's the only time I booked over the phone.

 

[ILoveMyDVC]

My guess is no. I think that any reservations booked prior to June 1st, when this new language was there will be given grace by DVC in terms of cancels.

Not saying they might not contact an owner and let them know there membership is "flagged", but I don't think that DVC wants to ruin what has already happened, when, in part, it was on DVC to make the rules clear prior to this new language.

Just went through a divorce, Three moves from 4 (yes) states in 3 years, had a retina randomly detach on last moving day in January, discovered my DGS has an incurable rare fatal disease (he's 5) , lost my FIL, and am building a new home. It's been a lot - I rented some points and sold 2 contracts.

Generally, I am against the mass rental folks and will be happy to see them curtailed if not eliminated. I have a strong dislike for the folks that used to enter the Christmas lottery, win, and then rent for crazy $$$$ but do have a biased interest in the current rentals for the next year.

Nothing if not honest about my views and questions.

Things have changed and gone back over the 32 years. Standing by.

 

[ILoveMyDVC]

I wish they were more specific. If my memory is correct, 10+ years ago lots of people were buying double what they needed because they were going to rent out half their points to cover their own vacations. That sounds like personal use, I guess, but half of their points were bought just to rent.

I was surprised that @Sandisw had to say her change was for personal use on the phone. I do recollect making some VDH reservations by phone on the first day we were allowed to book and they asked if I was the lead on all the reservations, nothing about "personal use" and that's the only time I booked over the phone.

I absolutely remember people doing this. Now, it is not really possible. My dues are close to $10/pt. and I can rent (through sites) for ~14/pt. makes me wonder if some of that was behind the massive dues increases. A *silent* way to discourage the practice you describe. I'd much rather they require a realistic* minimum direct purchase first to be a 'member'. Resales can be used for add ons.

*at least a week in a 1 bed of one's chosen home resort would end a lot of the crazy.

 

[davidhr]

I absolutely remember people doing this. Now, it is not really possible. My dues are close to $10/pt. and I can rent (through sites) for ~14/pt. makes me wonder if some of that was behind the massive dues increases. A *silent* way to discourage the practice you describe. I'd much rather they require a realistic* minimum direct purchase first to be a 'member'. Resales can be used for add ons.

*at least a week in a 1 bed of one's chosen home resort would end a lot of the crazy.

They can’t increase dues as they wish.

It’s true they pay themselves as they do a lot of the stuff that dues cover, but the risk of being caught overstating (“stealing”) the cost is not worth it to discourage that practice.

 

[CmdrThor]

I've rented I think 3 reservations in the 7 years I've been an owner. The number of points I've used has been overwhelmingly more than the number of points I rented. I have always been a supporter of the ability to rent in reasonable amounts, but lately all of the Facebook rental groups have been taken over by brokers and owners with massive number of points they exclusively rent out. I just was booted from a group that was created to support owners' right to rent their points out, but was later sold out to one of those brokers. All I said was these new rules might be better for the casual renter. At this point I wouldn't mind if every third party broker went out of business.

 

[Kingkonig]

They can’t increase dues as they wish.

It’s true they pay themselves as they do a lot of the stuff that dues cover, but the risk of being caught overstating (“stealing”) the cost is not worth it to discourage that practice.

Yeah, they are limited to what, 10? 12? percent of the budget. They can offload transportation costs proportionally to the villas, but I don't think they would want to astronomically increase the payrolls to the DVC properties (which would then more than likely force them to raise the pay in other resorts that are all cash) only to boost their management fees by a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Disney won’t be refunding anyone but I am sure that they would help to help the owner with a new room they pay for.

Oh, yeah, Disney won’t. The owner should though. When this happened with Wyndham owners who didn’t refund faced the possibility of significant legal hot water.

 

[Brian Noble]

I mean commercial renting is by definition getting money for the reservation.

That's your definition. It is not necessarily Disney's definition. And as Disney makes clear, they believe their opinion is the one that matters.

 

[muppets3d]

How could somebody rent any points when they have to say the reservation is for personal use to actually book the room? Does this not de facto mean the end of rentals unless you're willing to lie to DVC to book the room?

 

[Girlstar30]

To me this is more about scaring people than actually taking action.

I think the people that are breaking the rules will continue to break the rules.

Perhaps it will deter them from buying more points for commercial purposes which is good and its a good way for Disney to scare more people to buy direct in fear that their rental reservations will get cancelled.

Until I hear of them actually doing something like cancelling reservations from huge commercial renters, this really means nothing to me.

I imagine the lawsuits Disney might get for cancelling reservations that people say aren't for commercial purposes won't be worth it to Disney and they cant really figure out how to get rid of this issue or they would have already. Just my opinion.

I'd like to add that i would love just as much as anyone for this commercial renting to stop and my frustrations are i wish they would do more that doesnt affect regular members like the one time transfer rule.

Maybe send out warning emails to people that are so obviously commercial renting to scare them into stopping?

 

[Sandisw]

How can owners on the one hand be allowed to rent - but on the other not be allowed?

I mean commercial renting is by definition getting money for the reservation.

So I'm allowed to rent or give a reservation a away as long as money is not exchanging hands?

I think where it gets muddy is when people focus on on the world commercial and not what exaclty is and is not allowed under the “personal use” clause.

We are allowed to use our membership for personal use and under the definition of personal use in relation to the contract it includes some level of renting. That is guaranteed.

However, what DVC gets to decide is what level of renting moves it outside of personal use renting and commercial use renting.

I think people think personal use ONLY means owner and family/friends. It does not.

This new update clarifies personal use for owners and what it says is that renting frequently and regularly is not personal use.

That means that infrequently and irregularly renting should be okay.

DVC gets to decide what makes it frequent and regular. Not owners. So, when someone choose it’s for personal use now, you are agreeing that even as a rental, it would not be tipping the scale in a way that DVC tipped it to commercial use renting

That’s why I don’t believe DVC can use money as a factor because as you say, all rentals are for a fee.

The contract says owners get to set th terms of their rentals which would apply to the rate. Another reason why I don’t see DVC getting into it.

While DVC will push limits, I think the fact it’s taken them almost 6 months to get this newest language and check box up and running, they have spent time making decisions that will be common sense and go after who they said they want to go after…those owners who are clearly renting above and beyond what anyone would consider approriate under the personal use definition.

 

[dcfromva]

Lots of great questions.....my guess would be that when you call to make a reservation via Chat or call, they will have you attest to it being for personal use.

View attachment 970315

Hmmm. We have been owners since 2002. I don't want to rent out our points, but I am vaguely aware that it is permitted in the POS. So, I have questions. Frankly, the wording gives me heartburn. (I don't want to attest to anything that is not true.)

Here are some examples:

What if I suddenly decided to rent our points? It would seem like I should not check that box when making a reservation. (What would happen if I didn't check the box?)

I have gifted points to my sister, Mom, nieces and nephews at various times. (Sometimes I have not been at WDW or DL at the same time). It would seem like it would not be appropriate to check the box for "personal use"--unless I was in the room, too.

Sometimes we get a room for us and a room for our son's family. Again--we'd only be in the one room. Technically, the second room would not be for "personal use".

 

[Sandisw]

I absolutely remember people doing this. Now, it is not really possible. My dues are close to $10/pt. and I can rent (through sites) for ~14/pt. makes me wonder if some of that was behind the massive dues increases. A *silent* way to discourage the practice you describe. I'd much rather they require a realistic* minimum direct purchase first to be a 'member'. Resales can be used for add ons.

*at least a week in a 1 bed of one's chosen home resort would end a lot of the crazy.

They can’t do that. The contract limits what can be required. The maximum number of nights that can be implemented as a minimum for a reservation is 5 nights.

So, at most they could make all reservations require at least 5 nights but no more.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah, they are limited to what, 10? 12? percent of the budget. They can offload transportation costs proportionally to the villas, but I don't think they would want to astronomically increase the payrolls to the DVC properties (which would then more than likely force them to raise the pay in other resorts that are all cash) only to boost their management fees by a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

Dues must be based on realistic costs and can go up at most 15% each year…outside taxes.

The books are audited as well. The property management agreement is with Disney and they bill DVC for operation of the resort. So again, those things are audited

So, they can’t just raise operating expenses for no reason. The fee DVC gets to run the program is set..12% flat fee of operating expenses.